Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-04
Pending the suit an attachment was sued

well eSta 0llShed exceptions. Ii Is held
by this court that sureties upon the note
OF person of unsound mind would come
within the exception. In this case the
sureties TOO will be responsible, especial
~ when the psyee is ignorant OF the fact
that the principal Is lunatic; SIS in such
case recovery might be had
even against the lunatic if
the payee acted III good faith.
It was error in the courE to fail to charge
the law IS enunciated above; there was
no evidence that Lee defrsuded or made
misrepresentation to YsndeIl to get him
to sign the note.
The court instructed the jury that in
case they should find actual damages, not
to fad exceeding S1000-that being the
sum asked by Defendant Wa drip. Held
This was error. 1t might be taken as an
intimation that $1,000 was about the sum
the court thought should be given. T2O
Tex. PAT, 26 Tex. PIP It is the policy
Of the law in this stste 10 submit ques-
tions of fact to the jury without comment
thereon. For the errors pointed out the
Judgment must be set aside. Reversed
and remsnded. Maltbie, 2. J.
+. 4. Piper & Co vs.. N L Srottop, re-
ceiver; appeal from Uvalde Appellee
Strotton Wss appointed receiver Of prop
erty in controversy in the District court
OF Bexar' county. Appellants brought
this suit and alleged that in the perform
ance ct his duties as receiver appellee had
incurred this indebtedness for which the
notes sued on were executed, and that
they had permission of the District court
OF Bexar county to bring this suit. In
proof Of their right 80 sue, appellants in
<Aa oil
| "The party can sue if be chooses, but
there is no earthly occasion for it, be-
cause the receiver has Instructions to pay
all debts ard to sell property to supply
money demands on him. G II Nonnan,
district judge" Appellant entered an
appearance excepting to the petition on
the ground that appellants had no right
to sue; that the court h&d no Jurisdiction;
that there we're not proper parties de-
PENDANT, and that the petition shows no
authority for the execution OF the notes.
These exceptions were sustained and
from this ruling of the court, this appeal
is taken. Held: That we are of opinion
appellant did not have authority to sue.
A receiver being an officer of the court,
actirg under irs CORRECTIONS andI in all
things subiect TO it's authority, it Is con-
courts of equity to permit him to be made
party defendant to litigation without
the consent Of the court. Appellant not
asking leave TO file ttisl amendment, or
that the cause be continued over for any
purpose, and as said exceptions went to
the merits of the petition there was no
error in dismissiEg il. Affirmed. Malt
bic, P. j.
Max Weis vs.. Oliney & Griggs; ap-
peal from Limestone. This, suit was
brought by plaintiff in error against de-
PENDANTS in error in trsspass to Try title
to house and lot in the Town of Mexia.
D4f, ndsats answered by general de-
murrer plea Of not guilty, and specially
that Sci Wei, plaintiffs vendor, con-
v5yed the house and lot in controversy to
plaintiff with the intent to hinder, delay
aud detraud his creditors and that plain
tiff knew CT such fraudulent intent at the
time said conveyance WAS made. Judg-
ment was rendered for defendants In the
court below. Il is insisted by piaintif in
error that the court erred in It's fourth
conclusion Of fact, setting out fuily the
substance Of the conclusion. Held: II
the evidence adGuced upon the trial sup
ports Ghis conclusion, or is not clearly
against it, the judgment Of the court be-
low must be affirmed. This court, in
deciding the question here presented, is
governed by the same rules, whether
the case has been tried below
by the court or by jury.
Also held: Fraudulent interest, 1t is
tue, will not be presumed and must be
proved, but there is no principle better
settled than that sucn interest may be
proved By circumstantial evidence, nor is
it necessary that the circumstances must
be OF so conclusive a nature as TO ex-
clude every other hypothesis The ques-
rion of fraudulent intent in the execu-
ton Of E deed Is one which lies peculiarly
within the province OF the jury or court
passing upon the f0Ctg, 10 be determined
! from all the facts sud circumstances In
| evidence, and if the testimony is con-
f.cting, the CONCLUSION Of the jury or the
curt will not be disturbed By this court.
We think there is no error, and it is our
opinion that the judgment Of the court
! below shoudsoe affirmed. Acker, J.
| Erasmus Baksl vs.. Ell. NcKech1Ie. ct
al; appeal from Tom, GrHen. This suit
was brought against appellees TO recover
GAO acres OF land granted to Frederick
Bodensteln, it being section s4l IN Tom
Green county. Appellees plesd not
guilty and also the statue Of limitations
of FIVE years. Appellant showed title by
| Introducing In evidence patent from the
state to Frederick Bodenstein, dated
February II, 1861, End a deed from
Bodenstein to himself dated day l6, 1861.
To sustain their plea of five years liIni-
fetion appellees offsredin evidence and
admitted oyer appellants objectio J, o.
deed dated October 3, 1873, ana recorded
on same Day, describing the land as sur
yey NJ. 944 in the name of Frederick
Bcdeustein. Held: The question to be
determined is, was the deed under which
sppelles Claimed, tested by its own re-
citsls, sufficient to pu the owner Of the
land upon notice thst his possession had
been invaded. This would depend
on whether the description contained in
the deed, unaided by extrinsic facts, sat
is9y the N nd tnet the land In controversy
was embrsced therein. Land owners are
bound to take notice Of all deeds IT corded
in the county where their land lies, in so
! far sS the hOundsTies in SUch deeds nav